random n00b
-
Posts
629 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by random n00b
-
-
Sounds nice. I take it the game is at least fun to play.KK!Are you playing on the PC? If so, graphics/framerate?
Hey, DR. You're late. So how's Fallout 3?Oblivion with Guns is released today! YaY!!!!!!!! -
Actually, we did.But, yeah, we all know WW2 would have been avoided if the rest of Europe had just negotiated with Hitler. Bad, Europe, Bad!But we are doomed to not learn from our mistakes, it would seem.
-
Keep 'em coming, Jags!
We euros have to wait until Friday
-
DDO was fun, but the ruleset just didn't work. Mobs needed to have their HPs/saving throws/BAB hyperinflated so bands of moderately well equipped players didn't just cut a swath through hordes of them... and it made no difference in the end.DDO was not good.Yeah, Killian, but was that the ruleset or other factors? Or the ruleset in combination with other factors? I guess what I mean is, did it use the DnD ruleset and, if so, was that a detraction?
And PvP was ridiculous.
-
Um, nope. Saga Ed. is something of a hybrid of 3.5 and 4th editions, adapted and revamped for SW. Bio used their own home brewed variant of the d20 system for KotOR, and OE added even further mods.I'm assuming the SAGA system is what the first games used? I doubt that too...though you might see similar names (such as Guardian, Sentinel, Consular) for example.Actually, as I write this, I could see Guardian, Sentinel, Consular being the equivalent of talent trees if they were to blatantly rip off WoW. Or they could be different classes entirely, with their own talent trees (I do think that the talent trees will be ripped off, as well as much of WoW's mechanics actually...not that I think that's a good or bad thing).
I said that because while Saga could work for PvE, it's probably a very bad idea to have any PvP game use that ruleset. I'm sure they have designers competent enough to create a new ruleset, and I can't think of a single reason why it would be a good idea to shoehorn the latest d20 iteration into an MMO.
-
Huh? Is that a one-woman city, or what? That'd explain why she hates guys so much, what with being the only girl in the city and not getting any attention anyway...I've been to the city she lives in, and can confirm she's a girl. I've seen her walking around.The rumors you've heard were true, she really used to be a stripper.
What the hell am I saying, anyway? You can't fool me, Mr. (male) FBI Agent, you!
-
I'd much rather do some actual smuggling than simply have it as a word to define what my character "is". Scoundrels work perfectly as pirates, smugglers, thugs, gamblers, and pretty much everything else that involves any non-officially sanctioned activity... which also makes that career choice more interesting. I mean, how many blockades can you run before it gets old?Hehe, it'd be cool if you could play through the game as some type of smuggler.They mentioned distinct stories based on what you start as...but I suspect the smuggler might just be a bit TOO open ended for what they're aiming for with story.
they might make smuggler the shooty shooty equivalent of the standard Rogue class.... after all a smuggler and a rogue are the same thing... kinda.
Of course, I don't expect the game to use the SAGA system or anything of the sort. Not that I'd like them to, to be honest.
-
This is probably it. The only explanation I can think of is that they don't want any late additions to the team that may "steal their glory" or something like that. Understandable if they seek to get jobs in the industry, but otherwise...making it a closed project.Ironically, it's possible the project would be finished quicker if they finally announced they are giving up, as fresh people with more time and possibly a better disposition to work on the mod would take over. Full games have been made in significantly less time, and it's no surprise they are fed up with it.
-
Did you ever have any doubts?
It's a well known fact that there's only males and (male) FBI agents posting on the Internets.
-
I did, actually. Can I get my ten minutes back?Read the thread. If you do so, you'll see that I'm not against TOR, and that it's actually there for discussion.You are not against TOR, but you consider monthly fees "morally reprehensible". But no, you are not against TOR. No sirree!
The mod team and the mod itself are separate topics only in the most strict sense. Discussing TSLRP can (and will) usually lead to TG being mentioned and discussed in turn - and frankly I doubt a separate thread to discuss Team Gizka exclusively would be warranted. Fortunately, you don't get to decide what's off-topic and what's not.Well you were close, it's about TSLRP, not Team Gizka. So can we PLEASE get back on topic, and could the local moderators please clean out the off-topic rubbish? -
What's that substence again? Cortisol?
-
Then it looks to me like your time is worth very little. Getting into anything is an investment of time, and starting off at 5 is cutting it some slack up front. Of course, most entertainment will "entertain" you, but little else. That probably traduces into "the good outwheighing the bad", which results in most mediocre works getting scores above 5. This overinflation of grades has the added problem of cramming really good stuff into a very small interval. If mediocre and bad works got mediocre and bad grades, the high grades would have more meaning as they would be issued out more rarely, and the difference between a 93% and a 95% would mean something.As for the people who claim most everything is crap, well that's a completely useless point of view. Unless you've actually experienced most of everything you're just being pointlessly negative. For something to be crap I think absolutely everything about it has to be terrible, of the lowest quality possible, which would make for a score of 0/10, whereas it seems people use "crap" to mean "I don't like this for some reason". If I was going to review a game/book/movie/whatever and give it a score out of 10, then everything would start out at a 5. Pros would earn it points, cons would take points away. A score above 5 would mean the good outweighs the bad, a score below 5 means the bad outweighs the good.It's also funny that you focused mainly on the uselessness of any and all rating systems and the unreliability of their authors based on their inherent subjectivity (of course, you failed to mention that subjectivity tends to factor out when ratings are taken and evaluated in groups), and then went on to lay out your very own biased scheme.
Yeah, everyone's got an agenda but me, eh buddy?
You were careful enough not to quote me directly, but I should make it clear that I was simply following what Hurlshot said. I don't bother with reviews for the most part, and when I do, the figures hold no meaning for me.* How many people actually read the reviews they are criticizing before calling the reviewer a whore or a sellout based on a top score? Do you feel the same way about reviewers giving top scores to games you love? "Man, what a ****ing sellout, this game doesn't deserve a 10, it's merely a 9! Obviously paid off by the publisher." It's the body of the review that counts, but people seem more interested in ignoring that and focusing on the number, because a top mark means you can just tell they've been bribed. lolBut at any rate, your post shows a lack of knowledge of how the specialized press works, in any field. Because, believe it or not, there is a give-and-take working relationship between journalists and companies. There's got to be, a journalist's salary sucks.
What, whether I'm a "positive" or "negative" kind of guy?Can you answer the first question I asked Mr. n00b?Well, that depends on the time I get up from bed, mostly. But also what I have for breakfast and whether the floor is cold. What does it matter, anyway? I'm not making reviews and assigning scores. What you seem to refuse to understand is that I'm not disputing that some games are worth 4/5, 95% or 10/10. What I find pretty retarded (clever as it may be) is that scores below 40% simply don't exist... for no other reason than to offer a distorted perspective to prospective buyers. And the best part is that folks are ok with being deceived!
As for the rest of your post, well. Word it however you want, but the bottom line is the truth gives way to money. The actual quality of the product being reviewed is tangential. What matters is the PR investment, the relationship between the reviewer and the company, and other factors such as how "respected" one particular publication is and to what extent can they risk discredit by going against either the prevalent opinion or the hard facts.
-
Are you trying to spam this thread to closure? If so, do you realize that people will just open a new one?
-
This is equivalent to admitting that pr0 reviewers are essentially whores. Thus, their "ratings" are worthless. I've been arguing this for a long time, and it's good people are finally realizing it.Do negative or pessemistic people know they are that way? Because there are quite a few negative folks on these forums, and I just assumed they knew that is their disposition. Most people who get a job writing game reviews are positive. That's how they continue to get work. There are only a few exceptions where a negative person manages to carve out a niche, like the zero punctuation guy.So figure out what your disposition is and stop being outraged every time someone with a different disposition posts a review.
I didn't say RT are an authority on anything, merely that they understand what a percentile rating is supposed to represent. Often I don't even agree with the particular ratings there, and rarely check the website myself. However, people posting reviews there only have their e-cred to lose, and so aren't afraid of giving a bad movie a bad rating. No, bad is not 55%. Because you know, the great thing with percentages is that they give a good idea of a proportion with a glance. That's why they are used at all. However, if the rating scale effectively starts at 60% (since very rarely anything will score lower), that's misleading.It's true, I really have no clue what your point is.Do you want to explain it a bit more?
The catch is, ratings are never explained in detail. It's impossible they are intended to represent percentile rank. So then, they are a proportion of what?
-
Jeez, you two get a room already.
-
Hear that? Yeah, that's what the point sounds like when going right over your head.Yes, Rotten Tomatoes is clearly the ultimate authority on how ratings work. I've seen the light!
Well, I don't know then. You may believe that somebody able to appreciate good storytelling and solid roleplaying is going to prefer Sonic RPG over Fallout because it's prettier, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Even taking my rose-colored glasses off, pretty graphics and Liam Neeson still don't make a game better by themselves.Right, I didn't mean to imply a certain age by what I said. I just meant someone who didn't grow up with the game. I guess I said kid in the more abstract sense, where it's a person younger than the other person, like from a different time. Older person vs. younger person.Again, there's really very few "old gems" and in most cases the technical aspect hasn't aged very well at all. But most modern games set the bar really, really low. The thing is, good modern games with their high profiles tend to compensate for that, in an apparent sense. Think about it, what % of published games in a given platform do you actually bother with each year? And why?
Instinctively, you try to weed out the crap. And you know you aren't going to get a crap game, even if mags assure you it's a solid 75%. So then, what I'm wondering is, 75% of what exactly?
-
No. Ask a kid whether he prefers the latest Harry Potter book or flick vs Crime and Punishment or The Seventh Seal, and you get pretty much the same result. Following that argument only leads to the conclusion that game reviewers have the degree of refinement in their criteria of a five year-old - which I suspect isn't what you were trying to prove.I mean, give a kid who didn't grow up with your old games the choice of your old game, or a new game. your old game they rated a nine back when it was almost impossible to get that rating, or a new game that they gave a nine or ten "undeservingly" The kid is going to pick the new game, because your old games suck. Face it.Mind you, I agree in principle with what you're saying. There's a lot of different games for different tastes, and many (most) people won't be able to make fair comparisons between games they played fifteen years ago and present titles. But that doesn't mean a few select old games aren't better than a good chunk of what's produced today. And it has no relation either to the fact that rating an average (read: mediocre) game a 7.5 is misleading and absurd.
Those of you who think it's "ok" to have that sort of idiocy in ratings: take a look here to see how percentile ratings are really used by those who understand what they mean.
-
Lol.
Enable anonymous posts.
"Anonymous: We Are Legion"
-
Yeah, a high degree of customization is pretty important - and I think having all players who have top gear look alike is plain bad design. Having random drops be good (okay, not endgame raid-good, but useable) can go a long way towards ensuring a healthy variety of avatar appearances. This also has the added benefit of encouraging trading... people will bid for items similar or even the same as they have, just because of how it looks.The fact that everyone ends up looking exactly the same is one of my big beefs with WoW. As someone who said he played a lot of CoH, I'm sure Calax can attest to how cool it is to be able to obtain a signature look. Hell, by the time I stopped paying, the player had five costume slots. Look at WoW? Everyone ends up wearing the same gear. Especially folks trying to gear up on PvP. It's like a cookie cutter avatar factory over there.I'd like to have more options to customize the looks. Maybe we could get gear with the same stats but have more options in how it looks. Good Lord, please! PLEASE let us differentiate our appearance!
I wonder how they will deal with this issue concerning Jedi/Sith characters, though. Jedi looks are pretty uniform, with very little as far as cosmetic variations go, and customization could very easily cross the line of goofiness...
I'm hoping they will add a good variety of races, which also helps in this regard.
-
The forum software already allows you to filter all of that out, if you want. But you know that, don't you?
-
Wait, are you telling me you actually played SWG? I thought MMOs were like communion with the anti-Christ for you.No, I thought the way they handled Jedi was a good system - making force-sensitive people appear at random and actually forcing people to work to become one. Sorry if you thought it "sucked," but I disagree.Anyway, yeah. I guess I should listen to your opinion, being the expert you are on MMOs. Of course, making the elements of gameplay that everyone wants to play seeing as they are a staple of the freaking setting, depend on random chance and have players "work" to experience them is a great idea. Because SW is all about moisture farming!
I don't know man, Blizzard use their big figures a lot on their ads. So there's somebody, somewhere, who believes that big numbers convince people to try some product or other.It's not to hype itself into a head to head fight against WoW. I guess they're hoping to sucker some WoW players into looking to see if it's really true? -
Vaporware?You really have no idea what the TSLRP IS, do you? -
I agree, Darth_Windu! Let's get back on the topic of how you shamelessly whore around your rant thread over at the TOR boards, on which you bothered to register while admitting you're not going to bother with the game itself!Guys, can we get back on topic please? I know that TOR isn't what most of us wanted, and yet expected anyway. BUT it really has nothing to do with TSLRP...except that the release of TSLRP will probably be the last we ever see of the single-player KotOR franchise.If you want to go over to the TOR boards and express your opinion, I have a ready-made thread :D
Go go on-topicness!
-
That's Japanese laws we're talking about, so it's probably different there.
Also, I may be wrong but, don't people still need your permission to get into your house even if you've given them the keys? Or is it considered an implicit authorisation?
We did WHAT!?
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
Which, apparently, apply to Coalition forces only.You seem to know your stuff, so what can you tell us about unlawful combatants?